First of all, as part of the Transportation Improvement Program biennial update and Regional Transportation Plan amendment process all of the local jurisdictions submitted proposed changes that might affect air quality. For some reason, DDOT always includes planned bike lanes but no one else does. As noted in previous updates, addition on this list doesn't mean that these roads will get bike lanes, only that they might. DDOT submitted 8 road diets that would add bike lanes, many of which are not new.

Meanwhile, MDOT presented options for lane sharing for cyclists in case they decide not to build a shared use path on the new Nice Bridge over the Potomac downstream from DC.

MDOT and MDTA are not ruling out a barrier separated shared use path, but a barrier separated facility cannot be guaranteed during the closed procurement process without seeing what the innovative design proposals are and exploring other workable alternatives.

One idea is to just let cyclists take the lane. This would include Bicycle-compatible bridge joints, warning signs, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) like bicycle warning beacons.

They point to other bridges with high speed where it is not illegal to bike such as the Hatem Bridge and the US1 Bridge over Conowingo Dam, North of I-95 at Cecil & Harford Counties to show that it is "common in Maryland" and it can work. [No doubt it CAN work, but does it work well?] Hatem Bridge, they note has more car traffic than the Nice Bridge is expected to.

They also mentioned that on the Virginia side improvements end a half mile from the bridge and beyond that there is only a 2' wide shoulder on US-301. The argument being that even if they put a path on the bridge, cyclists will still have to ride on a dangerous route, but this ignores the fact that US-301 can be changed at some time between now and when this new bridge becomes obsolete.

Other options include converting the existing bridge into a bike/ped bridge, which comes with ownership and maintenance issues (because no one wants to take control of it) but would allow for demolition costs to be transferred to rehabilitation costs; a bicycle taxi system and police escorts for special events. The third is not really a solution and the taxi sounds like an expensive PITA. They expect to pick a final design in the fall.

As a concession last year after significant regional concerns about the changes, the state allowed bidders to offer details about a narrowed but still separated bike and pedestrian path in their bids.

The state has declined to use the cost savings from the construction cuts to pay to keep up the existing bridge as a fishing pier and bike and pedestrian path, and Charles County does not have the $50 million in today’s dollars to do it themselves, county Planning Director Jason Groth said.

“The county remains strong — and we’ve made the same comments since 2009 — that we would like to see separated bike lanes on this bridge,” he said. “One thing that’s key to remember for this particular project is it is a 100-year long bridge. We’re not going to see it rebuilt again.”

State transportation officials have not met with Charles County leaders to talk about the project, Groth said.

“All of our conversation has either been through a letter or here at TPB on this matter,” he said. “I strongly urge MDTA and MDOT to come discuss this item with us, because we are the jurisdiction that is most greatly affected by the decision made on this alternative.”

Rockville Mayor Bridget Newton was not optimistic. “I hope you get a meeting sir. We have not been so lucky on 270,” Newton said. She called it “short-sighted” to not build a separated path.

She also supported the bike path as something important to the economics of the county.

Bike advocates, such as Champe Burnley of the Virginia Bicycling Federation, agree. “The existing Nice Bridge is 80 years old, and we’re going to make a decision here that’s going to last well into the 22nd century,” Burnley said.

On the Virginia side, it could connect to an extended Dahlgren Trail and state park. Without the separate path, even Burnley would be worried about riding over the river in a shared lane.

“I’m a pretty experienced cyclist, and, quite frankly, I don’t think I would ride on that because with 60 mph trucks and cars going through there, not only would I not feel safe, I don’t think anybody would. And I ask you, would you want your spouse, your child, your grandchild riding on that road? I think you probably wouldn’t,” Burnley said.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If they're so sure that it's not worth it because of light use, they could change the push button so that it activates railroad-style guard arms that drop to keep car traffic off the bridge until the cyclist is all the way across. Or provide every cyclist with a police escort.

Short answer on the CLRP bike lane thing: No one but DC complies, but also, few other jurisdictions are changing the number of lanes on regionally-significant roadways (which is what is the requirement for submitting bike lanes to this CLRP - it's to run a regional air quality model that forecasts what significant system changes will do to regional air quality)

two questions:
does "complete 2019" mean DDOT projects that 9th St will be installed in 2019?
and, I was under the impression that we were only getting bike lanes from 1st to 6th st NE on K St. Am I wrong or misreading that they'll extend to 8th st?

Note: Hatem Bridge is only occasionally open to bikes - weekends and holidays. So while it is legal to bike on it, only when it's not convenient for bike commuters who might want to do so to get to work.